DOUG NEHRING – FOR 2011 WEPNER SYMPOSIUM The American Civil War was one of the most divided times in this country’s history. The war not only divided the nation into two separate realms, but it also broke apart families, splitting apart fathers and sons and pitting brother against brother. Nowhere was this more evident than in the Border States, those states that held slaves but did not secede. While each of these states was important in its own right, Missouri was seen as a key factor in winning the war for the Union. President Lincoln’s reaction to the secession movement in Missouri would show his political prowess, as well as the careful steps that he took to win the war and pull the country back together for once and for all. While the state was in turmoil, Lincoln made sure that his military leadership enforced strict martial regulations, all while ensuring the maximum amount of liberty for the normal citizens of Missouri, garnering Union support throughout a thoroughly divided state. Historian Dennis K. Boman highlights this when he writes: Undoubtedly remembering the reaction of Marylanders when troops from Massachusetts marched through their state, Lincoln assured the Missourians that he would do all he could to avert a crisis, pledging… that he would not send ‘troops through Missouri, as over a bridge, for the purpose of operating in any other place, &anticipates none.’ Lincoln was willing to allow the state to remain neutral in the conflict and promised to do nothing to inflame the populace.1 Despite the overwhelming odds, Lincoln and his Generals managed to turn secessionist Missouri into a favorable atmosphere for victory in the Civil War. Following Lincoln’s election to the Presidency, many Southern states claimed their independence from the Union that held the country together. Despite his platform’s claims of having no intention of attempting to end slavery where it already existed, the political leaders of these states insisted that Lincoln was an Abolitionist, and would seek to destroy their way of life. 1 Boman, Dennis K. Lincoln and Citizens' Rights in Civil War Missouri: Balancing Freedom and Security (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2011), 24 Assemblies were organized in every slaveholding state to decide whether or not the respective states would stay in the Union under such an oppressive President. Almost every Secession Assembly voted in favor of leaving the Union, except those of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. These states, while holding a strong number of vehement Secessionists, ultimately could not see a valid reason for them to leave the security that the government of the United States could offer. In Missouri, this decision was not brought about without a strong struggle by those arguing in favor of secession. The state’s Governor, Claiborne F. Jackson, was elected on a platform of preserving the Union, but was in truth a staunch secessionist, bent on releasing Missouri from the bonds of a tyrannical leader such as Lincoln. Jackson and his followers debated heavily for secession, but to no avail, as other prominent political figures were just as quick to point out the flaws in their arguments, and argue for staying in the Union as the most effective way to have a semblance of stability in the coming war. The clear leader among these men was Hannibal R. Gamble, of St. Louis, who was quick to point out that the Southern way of life could not sustain itself without the industry of the North, where the goods grown in the South, such as cotton, indigo and rice were shipped to be made into useful products. Without this trade of goods, the economy of the South could not survive. After the vote to remain in the Union, Governor Jackson took it upon himself to save Missouri, so he assembled the Missouri State Guard, under the command of General Sterling Price to take the state and declare it a part of the Confederacy. This blatant move toward secession made by a supposedly pro-Union governor sparked outrage throughout the state in every pro-Union citizen. This was especially true in St. Louis, Missouri’s largest city and one of the economic centers of the state. Not only was the city extremely pro-Union, but it also contained one of the largest military arsenals in the country at the time, making it especially appealing to Jackson, who needed the munitions in order to successfully liberate Missouri from the Union. Jackson had appealed to Confederate President Jefferson Davis for weaponry with which he could take the arsenal before the Union forces could empty it, and was supplied with a good deal of heavy artillery with which to do so, which was smuggled through the city to their camp. Taking the arsenal would be a huge challenge, however, as the city of St. Louis was now well guarded under General Nathaniel Lyon, the commander of the Department of the West, who was brought to the city to keep the state from seceding. Lyon’s first controversial move was to seize all of the munitions in the arsenal and remove them to Illinois for safekeeping.2 This move by Lyon, made after the raid of Missouri’s only other federal arsenal in Liberty, only caused more turmoil, as it was a relief to some, but an outrage to others. Seen as an action made out of distrust of the population of St. Louis, and Missouri in general, the removal of these weapons made many Missourians who were on the fence about who they were going to support come out as full supporters of the Confederate cause within the state. Shortly after this event, and a failed meeting with Governor Jackson and General Price, Lyon was replaced as Commander of the Department of the West by General John C. Fremont. General Lyon would die at the Battle of Wilson’s Creek in April of 1861.3 Fremont’s command of Missouri was one of conflicting orders. He was quick to declare martial law, and to establish police actions within the city of St. Louis in order to keep the Union stronghold from falling to secessionists, something that was necessary, if not slightly excessive.4 Yet, there were many points in which Lincoln, upon hearing of a decree of Fremont’s, was 2 “Removal of Arms from Missouri” New York Times, April 27, 1861. 3 Adamson, Hans Christian, Rebellion in Missouri: 1861 (Philadelphia: Chilton Company, 1961), 257. 4 Boman, Lincoln and Citizens’ Rights in Civil War Missouri, 45-46. forced to immediately give one of his own rescinding the former. This was especially the case when Fremont would give an order that would run the risk of enraging the people of Missouri and sparking even more support of secession in the state. One such instance came on August 30, 1861, when Fremont issued a proclamation stating that anyone caught taking up arms against the United States government would be shot, and all slaves of disloyal persons were to be emancipated.5 This order was entirely contradictory to Missouri’s interim Governor, Hannibal R. Gamble’s offer of a full pardon to anyone in Missouri’s secessionist army under General Price who would lay down their arms, issued earlier that same month. This contradiction, as well as the emancipation of slaves within the state, angered President Lincoln, who refused to allow the release of slaves unless they were confiscated out of military necessity. These concerns were addressed in a well-worded letter to Fremont, who requested that Lincoln rescind the order if he was not pleased with it. This was done immediately.6 This unfortunate circumstance was not the only one of Fremont’s career in Missouri. From the outset, it was clear that Fremont was hesitant to take direct action against Governor Jackson and his army, but preferred to bolster the state with Union troops and safeguard many areas from secessionist advances. This action is admirable in its essence, but the policies that were carried out in order to do so served no purpose but to increase the frustrations of Missourians, especially those loyal to the Union. One such policy was carried out by one of Fremont’s subordinates, General John Pope. Pope was put in charge of Northern Missouri, where there was an overall lack of Confederate soldiers to cause problems for the Union troops. Pope’s soldiers were fiercely independent, and would generally think about the orders they were given before they decided if they wanted to carry them out. As tensions increased between 5 Boman, Lincoln and Citizens Rights in Civil War Missouri, 44. 6 Ibid. 45. Missourians and Union troops, Lincoln and his administration became increasingly frustrated with the situation. One such frustration was Pope’s General Orders No. 3, which allowed Union troops to search civilian homes if a reason presented itself. This power was greatly abused, prompting a letter from Governor Gamble to President Lincoln expressing concerns about the actions. Shortly after this letter was written General Orders No.3 was repealed.7 General Fremont was not without opportunity to capture Governor Jackson and his secessionist brigade and restore order to Missouri; he simply never took the chances that were presented to him. One such chance came to him as General Price made a slow advance toward the Missouri town of Lexington. Fremont did send a small garrison of troops to the town, but never made any other attempt to keep it, citing transportation issues. This excuse was without validity, as the town was located directly along the Missouri river, and the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad ran close by, both sources under complete Federal control.